Actor Margaret Qualley (The Substance) showed up last Thursday for the London premiere of her new film The Dog Stars without shoes. This wasn’t her nightmare, where she was barefoot at her film premiere and had forgotten to attend one of her college classes all semester. No, this actually happened.
Of course, while most of us need shoes to tie our whole outfit together, like the Dude’s rug, Qualley is so stunning she looks good in anything. (By the way, Qualley is the daughter of equally stunning actor Andie MacDowell. She was born after MacDowell starred in Groundhog Day and Four Weddings And A Funeral, both of which I saw in theaters as a full-grown adult — well, I was in college — but she is somehow 31 years old. I have no further comment on this grim reality.)
I should clarify that technically Qualley was wearing shoes. It just raises an entire metaphysical debate over what actually qualifies as footwear. (Watch below.)
Yes, you saw correctly. Qualley’s non-shoes shoes have only a block heel and two ankle straps. The heels are probably the most durable part of your feet. Few people complain about stubbing their heel, and those who do are whiners. Qualley’s non-shoes shoes don’t even cover the soles of her feet — they lack even the most basic flip-flop engineering. These non-shoe shoes might work for around the house — as long as you’re not the parent of a child who collects Legos — or at a resort where sandals is part of the name, but they are utterly useless for protecting your feet from a gross world.
I immediately have questions: How does it work if someone wearing the non-shoes shoes shows up at a shoeless home? If they remove the ankle strap and heel covering, they’re now roaming the house with feet covered in twigs, crusted mud, and human urine. If this trend takes off, it could lead to more shoes-required homes, which was my mother’s preference. She’d rather mop and vacuum daily than let her house become, in her words, a “hippie commune.”
The absurd footwear was unveiled to repressed laughter on April 28 as part of Matthieu Blazy’s Chanel Cruise collection. They are estimated to cost somewhere between $1,500 and $2,700 (mandatory pedicure not included). Chanel won’t confirm the actual retail price, which makes sense because it’s obviously targeted toward the demographic for whom price is no object — rich people who are idiots. (Money can ease much of the sting from stupidity.)
However, Qualley herself isn’t a rich idiot. Sure, she’s rich, but she doesn’t pay to wear no shoes. Rather she’s paid to wear no shoes, which is the better reason not to wear shoes. Qualley was also paid to not wear shoes in a somewhat superfluous scene from Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood. (Tarantino is just openly producing fetish content in his later work. His films are great to have on your resume, but you can’t dwell on what he does while reviewing the dailies.)
Qualley is one of Chanel’s “ambassadors,” who “not only personify Chanel’s aesthetic but also influence fashion trends worldwide.” See, Chanel expects that Qualley will help popularize this Tarantino-approved fashion choice. Qualley has walked the runway (usually in shoes) for Chanel in 2021 and 2024. She wore a custom Chanel dress and ballet flats for her August 2023 wedding to Jack Antonoff. The couple separated in July, but while men are temporary, Chanel is forever.
Screenwriter Kathleen Wolak posted about the Chanel “shoes” on Threads, “Are rich people fucking with us”? The answer is of course they are. It’s called fashion. Poor people who don’t have shoes can’t even walk into 7-Eleven, but if you can afford to pay enough to leave the house without shoes, you’re more than welcome on the red carpet.
Margaret Qualley can wear the Chanel shoes without worrying about stepping on a rusty nail or surprise street poop because she’s famous and wealthy enough that someone probably clears a safe path for her. It’s the barefoot walker version of a food taster.
Comedian Lana Salah called the Chanel non-shoes a “humiliation ritual,” and, yes, obviously, the non-shoes are hideous. However, they are also the final boss in the fashionable but completely unpractical shoes that cost several hundred dollars a pop. How often do women in fancy, expensive shoes end up removing them at the end of the evening? It’s like paying a fortune for a luxury car and then pushing it back home.
Back in 2008, I was once at a wedding reception that felt like it would never end. This early into my peak wedding attendance period, so I naively assumed that the uncomfortable shoes would eventually force our dates to abandon the festivities. However, my friend Ryan warned me that we’d reached the point where women had drunk enough that they didn’t care about certain social conventions. “See? They’ve all removed their shoes.” He handed me a Scotch. “We’re never leaving.” Wearing the Chanel non-shoes is to start out the evening several cocktails down and dancing to House of Pain’s “Jump Around.”
Oscar Wilde wrote in the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray that “all art is quite useless.” Chanel creative director Matthieu Blazy would probably defend his no-shoes shoes as “art,” but he’s chosen for his canvas something that is inherently useful. More than 600 million children live without access to shoes, which results in pain, disease, and disability. Proper footwear literally saves lives. If you’re a non-celebrity considering splurging on Chanel’s non-shoes shoes, you might set aside a few bucks for some real shoes for people who need them.
I swear some clothing designers are just sadists who deeply hate their customers. Personally I can’t find anything attractive when it looks uncomfortable on the person wearing it, though I get that some people are really into super high heels, etc. And not sure from where a barefoot fetish like Tarantino’s comes from, but the idea of stepping on glass or accumulating dirt or grease just depresses me.
See Steve Martin “The Cruel Shoes”